cms@dragon.uucp (08/06/90)
A few more gems, just for good measure: In 1967, Joseph's Smith papyri were
discovered from which he claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham found
in the Pearl of Great Price. An actual translation by real scholars revealed
the papri to be an Egyptian death scroll, the contents of which bore no
relation whatsoever to Smith's Book of Abraham.
The Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham 3:22, "Now the Lord had shown
unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was;
and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw
these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he
said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits,
and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of
them; thou wast chosen before thou was born.
"And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those
who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take
of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we
will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord
their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be
added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in
the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep
their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
"And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of
Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me.
And the Lord said: I will send the first. And the second was angry, and kept
not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
"And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the
beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the
earth. And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because
they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face
of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the
waters. And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided
the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness. And the Gods called
the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that
from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until
the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that
which they called day and night."
The Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 2:1, "And it came to pass that the Lord
spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven,
and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End,
the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the
beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.
"And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up
upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upoon the face of the water; for
I am God.
"And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light. And I, God, saw
the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the
darkness. And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night;
and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the
evening and the morning were the first day."
Book of Moses 4:1, "And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That
Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same
which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying -- Behold, here am
I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul
shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
"But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the
beginning, said unto me -- Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine
forever.
"Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the
agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should
give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that
he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of
all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will,
even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. And now the serpent was more
subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made."
--
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
_///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ //
_///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<<
<`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\
\\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\
\\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<<
\\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgiacms@dragon.uucp (08/06/90)
The Mormon religion has never been accepted by any Christian council of churches including: National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of Christian Churches, Word Council of Churches, American & International Council of Churches, among others. One of the major problems with the validity of the Book of Mormon is its contention that two great civilizations once flourished on the American continent; it describes buildings, machinery, shipping and shipbuilding, temples, synagogues, and even a city whose inhabitants sank in the ocean, like Atlantis. The archaeological evidence does not support these contentions. The Smithsonian Institution has indicated that no contacts with Egyptian, Hebrew, or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East occurred among American Indian cultures. Furthermore, the American Indian is basically Mongoloid (more closely related to eastern, central, and northeastern Asia). Present archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of American Indians migrated across a land-bridge in the Bering Strait during the last Ice Age around 30,000 years ago. The Book of Mormon indicates that the first of the two great civilizations it describes left the Tower of Babel about 2,250 B.C. whereas the second group left around 600 B.C. Cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are nowhere to be found, the elephants described in Ether 9:19 never existed in North America, metals supposedly made and used by these civilizations have never turned up. Archaeologically, the Book of Mormon is a flop. Also, Mormon theology consistently indicates that the American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites, who are supposed to have been Semitic, in fact Jewish. American Indians are Mongoloid and not of Mediterranean extraction. From the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 11:13, "....And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white. And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou? And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." 1 Nephi 13:15, "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceeding fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain." 2 Nephi 30:4, "And then shall the remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came out from Jerusalem, and that they are descendants of the Jews. And the gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers. And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall become a white and delightsome people." 4 Nephi verse 8, "But there were many cities which had been sunkk, and waters came up in the stead thereof; therefore these cities could not be renewed. And now, behold, it came to pass that the people of Nephi did wax strong, and did multiply exceedingly fast, and became an exceedingly fair and delightsome people." I should note here that I am quoting from a pre-1973 version of the Book of Mormon. Since that time, I understand it has undergone revisions, that is, "corrections." The three witnesses at the front of the Book of Mormon, the ones who witnessed that they actually saw the plates and the angel which brought them, later said they saw them with the "eyes of faith." All three of these witnesses later apostosized from the Mormon faith and were described as thieves and counterfeiters by Mormon contemporaries. The very witnesses to the validity of the Book of Mormon are thus described by the Mormons themselves as unreliable. The Book of Mormon has more than 25,000 words quoted from the King James Bible. The Mormons say that Nephi must have brought the Hebrew Bible with him and this accounts for the quotations from the Old Testament. It stretches the limits of credulity to believe that the translations of the inscribed plates came out in King James English without variation more than 1000 years before the 1611 Authorized Version was written. I can't go on. Anyone can see why I refuse to accept, and all legitimate Christian churches refuse to accept, the Book of Mormon as a valid testimony of Jesus Christ, and why secular scholars refuse to accept the Book of Mormon as having any basis in fact. At least Biblical stories have archaeological evidence to back them up, whereas the Book of Mormon has none. As a work of fiction, the Book of Mormon is a masterpiece; I commend its probable author Solomon Spaulding, who wrote a work called "Manuscript Story," which was probably later changed and expanded into "Manuscript Found." None of the anti-Mormonists who discovered "Manuscript Story" believed it was the manuscript upon which the Book of Mormon was based; rather, they believe that Spaulding, a retired minister, wrote a later version of his story, as yet undiscovered, upon which Joseph Smith plagiaristically based his Book of Mormon. Even so, "Manuscript Story" contains "at least 75 similarities to what is now the Book of Mormon and this is not to be easily explained away." Source: The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms [I am normally not enthusiastic about anti- postings. However this is a common enough conception about the basis of the LDS faith that it seems best to get it on the floor and let our LDS readers respond. Walter Martin's book is not always the most unbiased of sources, but I believe our LDS readers are in a better position than I to give details. --clh]
cms@dragon.uucp (08/06/90)
Pearl of Great Price, Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet 2:63, "Sometime in the this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: "'I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him. "' He then said to me, ''Let me see that certificate.'' I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ''I cannot read a sealed book.'' I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.'" Professor Charles Anthon, upon learning of this claim by Joseph Smith concerning him, wrote a letter to one Mr. E. D. Howe, a contemporary of Joseph Smith. Herein is a copy of Professor Anthon's letter: **** Begin Quote **** New York, N.Y., Feb. 17, 1834 Mr. E. D. Howe Painseville, Ohio Dear Sir: I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglphics" is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simplehearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A "gold book," consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of "gold spectacles"! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at the time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been deciphered "by the gift of God." Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money towards the publication of the "golden book," the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young manwiththe spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paer, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a part of a scheme to cheat the farmer ofhis money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the "curse of God" would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the "curse of God" upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of the rogues. He then left me. I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics. Yours respectfully, Charles Anthon, LL.D. Columbia University -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms
cms@dragon.uucp (08/06/90)
Originally, I posted this article on talk.religon.misc, however, in view of the recent question about Mormon beliefs concerning the appearance of Jesus to the ancient American Indians, I thought I'd repost it on s.r.c. Several more articles follow. [or precede -- I got this one last, and it's hard to know in what order you will see them --clh] In article <5380@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite) writes: In article <336@caeco.UUCP> andre@caeco.UUCP (Andre' Hut) writes: >This is slightly understated. Brigham Young preached that Adam was God, >and the LDS church held that as doctrine for nearly fifty years. As long as you are suggesting that we stick to facts, this accusation is hardly established fact. Brigham Young is quoted as saying something to that effect but the quote is in a book published in England several years after he was alleged to have said it. The book was based on notes someone took and Brigham Young (who was in Utah at the time of publication) had no chance to review it for accuracy. On the Mormon position of the Nature of God, I have here a list of quotations from Mormon sources which I shall reproduce here so that people can people can judge for themselves what Mormons believe on the basis of their own statements about themselves: ******* begin quote ******* 1. "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to crete the world and people it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349). 2. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man,..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). 3. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's: the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit..." (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22). 4. "Gods exist, and we had better strive to be prepared to be one with them" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 238). 5. "As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become" (Prophet Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, pp. 105, 106). 6. "Each of these Gods, including Jesus Christ and His Father, being in possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious immortal body of flesh and bones..." (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, ed. 1965, p. 44). 7. "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth" (Abraham 4:1). 8. "Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is" (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 123). 9. "Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God -- an exalted being -- through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity to obey" (Hunter, op. cit., p. 104). 10. "Christ was the God, the Father of all things...Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son" (Mosiah 7:27 and Ether 3:14, Book of Mormon). 11. "When our father Adam came in the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organized this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do" (Brigham Young, in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 50). 12. Historically this doctrine of Adam-God was hard for even faithful Mormons to believe. As a result, on June 8, 1873, Brigham Young stated: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed unto me -- namely that Adam is our father and our God.... "'Well,' says one, 'Why was Adam called Adam?' He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, 'I want my chldren who are in the sprit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exhaltation'" (Deseret News, June 18, 1873, p. 308). ............... The following quotations are excerpted from a sermon published in the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons (August 15, 1844, pp. 613-614) published four months after Smith delivered it at the funeral of Elder King Follet and only two months after [Joseph] Smith's assassination in Carthage, Illinois. This discourse was heard by more than 18,000 people and recorded by four Mormon scribes. It is significant that the split in Mormonism did not take place for more than three and one-half years. So apparently their ancestors did not disagree with Smith's theology, as they themselves do today. Nor did thy deny that Smith preached the sermon and taught polytheism, as does the Reorganized Church [of Latter-day Saints] today. But the facts must speak for themselves: "I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him,...What sort of a being was God in the beginning? "First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves,...if you were to see him today, you would see him in all the person, image and very form as a man... "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and thatgod himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did...what did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon;) Jesus said, as the Father hath powerin himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obvious...Here then is eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done; by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power..." .............................. Mormon apostle James Talmage describes the church's teachings as follows in his book The Articles of Faith: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of 'body, parts, or passions,' as a thing impossible of existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of scripture and revelation...Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh...Jehovah who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called "the Father"...That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the book JESUS THE CHRIST, chapter IV (pp. 48, 466, 467). .............................. That the Mormons reject the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity no student of the movement can deny, for after quoting the Nicene creed and early church theology on the Trinity, Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares: "It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as here...The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the Scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God's person and attributes..." (p. 48). .............................. Continuing with our study, apostle Orson Pratt, writing in The Seer, declared: "in the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state" (p. 37). ............................... [Talmage, The Articles of Faith]: "It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time...Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an 'immaterial being,' under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits..." (pp. 42, 43). ................ Parley P. Pratt [wrote]: This leads to the investigation of that substance called the Holy Spirit or Light of Christ...There is a divine substance, fluid or essence, called Spirit, widely diffused among these eternal elements...This divine element, or Spirit, is immediate, active or controlling agent in all holy miraculour powers...The purest, most refined and subtle of all these substances, and the one least understood, or even recognized, by the less informed among mankind, is that substance called the Holy Spirit" (Key to the Science of Theology, pp. 45, 105, 46). ....................................................... In Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 the following statement appears: "All those who humble themselves...and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism in His church." [In the Book of Mormon]: "Yea, blessed are they who shall...be baptized, for they shall...receive a remission of their sins...Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling of the commandments unto the remission of sins" (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11). ........................................................ Relative to the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ, Brigham Young has unequivocably stated: "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was NOT begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who was the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle [body], it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession...Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven (Journal of Discourses, Vol. I, pp. 50 and 51). [Brigham] Young said: "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him...He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." Parley Pratt, a leading Mormon writer whose books are recommended by Mormon publishing houses as representing their theological views, also writes concerning this doctrine: "Each of these Gods, including Jesus Christ and his Father, being in possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious immortal body of flesh and bones..." (Key to the Science of Theology, Ed. 1966, p. 44). Added to this polytheistic picture are other official Mormon sources, many of whom confirm the sexual conception of Jesus enunciated by Young and many others. Wrote apostle james Talmage in The Articles of Faith: "...His [Christ's] unique status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother [Mary] and of an immortal, or resurrected and glorified, Father [Elohim]" (p. 473, ed. 1974). Brigham Young, therefore, taught this anti-Biblical doctrine of which he spoke openly more than once as recorded in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 67; Vol. 4, p. 218; Vol. 4, p. 216; Vol. 10, p. 192; Vol. 13, p. 145; Vol. 9, p. 291; Vol. 3, p. 365; Vol. 4, p. 27: "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, (body) the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218). ................................ In Mormon theology, Christ as a pre-existent spirit was not only the spirit brother of the devil (as alluded to in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4, and later reaffirmed by Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 282), but celebrated his own marriage to both "the Marys and Martha, whereby he could see his seed before he was crucified" (apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 259-260). [Brigham Young]: "Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; and under such circumstances, i have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands... "There is not a man or woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that they will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it; and the judgements [sic.] of the Almighty will come, sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for their covenants...All mankin love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed...I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins...This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. III,p. 247, and Vol. 14, pp. 219-220). ************** End of Quote ***************** The Kingdom of the Cults Walter Martin pp. 202-219 There's much more. Obviously, this author does not favor Mormonism. I quoted his quotes of Mormons, along with some of his comments. (I hope I didn't quote too much. I skipped around to find Mormon quotes. How much can you quote directly from a book to generate discussion anyway?) LDS doctrine is really rather limited as to what members are expected to believe. The cannonized scriptures and a few official statements of the "First Presidency" are about it. However, we are encouraged to think and study for ourselves and some of this gets published. It is useful to give others something to think about but in general is not official. The author of the above work appears to me to be of the opinion that if most Mormons knew what their theology taught they might not believe it. Most Mormons, he maintains, are decent, clean living folk, who are largely unaware of the inconsistencies and outrageous blasphemies of their religion. I think Mormons want to be Christians, and believe they are Christians, but the theology of the Latter-day Saints is simply not Christianity. Perhaps, over time, the Mormon Church will continue to repudiate so many of the outrageous statements of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and others that they will rejoin the ranks of Christianity. An assertion as to the truthfulness and accuracy of the Apostles Creed would be a good start. -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith emory!dragon!cms [The volume of postings by Cindy on this subject has been larger than I normally like to accept from one person on one subject. However since there is pretty much a standard list of issues in discussions about LDS theology, it seemed best just to get the whole list on the table at once. I'm going to be pretty selective about other postings on this subject, rejecting those that duplicate these. --clh]
ssimmons@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Stephen Simmons) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.07.00.1990.17538@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > > The Mormon religion has never been accepted by any Christian council of >churches including: National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of >Christian Churches, Word Council of Churches, American & International Council >of Churches, among others. First, let me start by saying that I only know one Mormon family, and that they are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule. However, this family believes in Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation, and because of this, I classify them at least, as Christian. They say (I think) that Mormons in general believe this. Mormon netters, what do you say? As a result of this, a classify their religion as Christian, but that doesn't mean I agree with them; neither do I agree that the Book of Mormon is a revelation from God. Other than their putting forward of the Book of Mormon, which tends to offend other Christians, for what reason are they not accepted as a valid Christian religion? >The >Smithsonian Institution has indicated that no contacts with Egyptian, Hebrew, >or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East occurred among American >Indian cultures. A book a read as a child, about Thor Heyerdahl's explorations indicated that this was quite likely. Thor Heyerdahl was considering the possibility that the Egyptians could have crossed over to the Americas, so he and some friends built a papyrus reed boat and did so by themselves; well almost, they were rescued about 40 miles from a Caribbean Island because a hurricane was brewing there... This adventure was executed in the 60s or 70s, I don't remember when. The book also mentioned some possible identification of Egyptian culture in Western South America. --Stephen Simmons [Cindy Smith has given a pretty good answer to this question in the 4 postings from last time. How many of the charges that she summarized are actually true remains to be seen though. At least some appear not to be. Perhaps the ensuing discussion will clarify others. If we try to disregard anti-LDS propaganda, the most serious problems seem to be: - The LDS church considers that the Christian Church died, and they are the only Church that has a mandate from Christ, and true sacraments. I'm being careful about how I word this, because I do believe they acknowledge individual Christians as followers of Christ. - They have some ideas about God that seem unacceptable to most Christians. In particular, they do not see an intrinsic difference between God and humans, such that humans can eventually develop (after death and glorification) into equals of God. This seems to have implications for our situation before God and how we are saved, but I'm not a sufficient expert on LDS beliefs to be willing to comment on this. These seem to me to be the most basic problems. I agree that having unusual beliefs about American history is not in itself theologically serious. --clh]
hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.20.13.1990.17569@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: >Mormons, he maintains, are decent, clean living folk, who are largely unaware >of the inconsistencies and outrageous blasphemies of their religion. I think >Mormons want to be Christians, and believe they are Christians, but the >theology of the Latter-day Saints is simply not Christianity. Perhaps, over I'm still on a devil's advocate kick here... let's substitute some words and see if the result is familiar: Christians, he maintains, are decent, clean living folk, who are largely unaware of the inconsistencies and outrageous blasphemies of their religion. I think Christians want to be Jews, and believe they are Jews, but the theology of the Latter-day Saints [I think he means Christians here --clh] is simply not Judaism. Or, I could have offended you less by substituting Moslem and Bahai. I think you have proved one point - the LDS are not a Christian church by the common definitions of other christian churches. Please note, however, that you have not proved the invalidity of the LDS as a religion. Neither you not I nor the Bishop of Rome nor any human may say what constitutes salvation and what does not. -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 |
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.03.20.1990.17526@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: [Cindy posts 4 articles, all probably lifted directly from Walter Martin. I will try to respond as time permits, starting with this one] > A few more gems, just for good measure: In 1967, Joseph's Smith papyri were >discovered from which he claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham found >in the Pearl of Great Price. An actual translation by real scholars revealed >the papri to be an Egyptian death scroll, the contents of which bore no >relation whatsoever to Smith's Book of Abraham. Hardly. It appears that not all the papyri were discovered and certainly the scroll translated by "real scholars" was *not* the Book of Abraham manuscript. The Abraham manuscript was described in Joseph Smith's journal as beautifully written and preserved, written in black ink with headings in red (rubrics). The text you (or your source, probably Walter Martin and D. Nelson) refer to is poorly written and preserved and has no rubrics. While "beautifully written and preserved" may be a subjective call, the lack of rubrics rules out this as the Abraham manuscript. The papyrus you refer to is indeed a funerary text and this fact was published by the LDS church well before Nelson started his misguided work. Nelson, by the way, is no Egyptolist in spite of his claims and has retired from the "Mormon-bashing" business since somebody checked on his credentials and found them to be bogus. If you want a scholarly treatment of this scroll, try _The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri_ by Hugh Nibely. [A lot of quotation from the PoGP deleted since I don't know what Cindy is trying to prove by including it.]
timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.20.50.1990.12643@athos.rutgers.edu> you write: >In article <Aug.5.19.20.13.1990.17569@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > [lines deleted] >I'm still on a devil's advocate kick here... let's substitute some words and >see if the result is familiar: > >Christians, he maintains, are decent, clean living folk, who are >largely unaware of the inconsistencies and outrageous blasphemies of >their religion. I think Christians want to be Jews, and believe they >are Jews, but the theology of the Latter-day Saints [I think he means >Christians here --clh] is simply not Judaism. > >Or, I could have offended you less by substituting Moslem and Bahai. > no, i don't think so. the "parallelism" you draw is completely invalid. someone who calls himself a Christian knows that he is not a Jew (i won't bother addressing the "Jews for Jesus"). secondly, are you just mouthing those words to see the effect, or are you actually *stating* them as your beliefs? >I think you have proved one point - the LDS are not a Christian church by the >common definitions of other christian churches. no. they're not Christians because Christian churches say so - they're not Christians because their doctrines directly contradict various basic foundational issues that the Bible sets out as mandatory to call oneself a Christian. some extraordinarily prominent breaks with Scripture are: that God was once a man, who somehow "earned" his Godhood, and that men can do the same - hence denying man's essential hopelessly sinful nature; that Jesus Christ took several wives and fathered children; that Christ and Satan are brothers; that Hell does not exist; that Adam is God, and has many wives by whom the Earth is populated with His "spirit-children" who need bodies; that Jesus Christ's death did *not* provide for Salvation, only Resurrection; etc, etc. >Please note, however, that you have not proved the invalidity of the LDS as a >religion. oh, it's a viable "religion". so are Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, and the rest. the whole point, tho, is that Mormonism is not Christianity, despite the fact that it borrows much "Christian" lingo, along with greatly modified doctrine. Neither you not I nor the Bishop of Rome nor any human may say what >constitutes salvation and what does not. strictly speaking, this is true. however, God tells us what *does* constitute salvation - at least, if you're at least somewhat :-/ familiar with the New Testament. Christ says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father, but through Me." (i'd suggest that this is a pretty powerful claim. such a claim demands that either you accept it, and follow Him, or reject Him. there's no middle ground at all, which is just what He intended.) i dunno, henry. this seems pretty straightforward to me. Christ claims that He *alone* provides salvation - if we confess our hopeless sinful nature, asking His forgiveness, and giving Him Lordship of our lives. one other point continues to be missed is that Christianity is NOT a religion. Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ. Christ *never* set up a "religion". the Jews already had one, but it did not Justify them before God. the point that Christ was driving home was that the Law (religion) never saved anyone - it accused and condemned them. instead, He was providing a means of salvation and justification completely separate from the Law - Faith in Christ. Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.07.00.1990.17538@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > The Mormon religion has never been accepted by any Christian council of >churches including: National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of >Christian Churches, Word Council of Churches, American & International Council >of Churches, among others. Is this supposed to be some sort of condemnation? [I will try to deal with each subject in your lead paragraph but to do so I have to split it up quite a bit.] > One of the major problems with the validity of the Book of Mormon is its >contention that two great civilizations once flourished on the American >continent; it describes buildings, machinery, shipping and shipbuilding, ^^^^^^^^^??? >temples, synagogues, and even a city whose inhabitants sank in the ocean, like >Atlantis. The archaeological evidence does not support these contentions. The BoM does not give a great deal of geographic information about the Americas, but the most likely site for it is Mesoamerica, the area from about Mexico City southward to near or a little beyond the Yucatan peninsula. Are you claiming that great civilizations are not consistent with archeology in that region? Check out the Olmecs and the Mayas. > The >Smithsonian Institution has indicated that no contacts with Egyptian, Hebrew, >or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East occurred among American >Indian cultures. What really happened is that an "urban ledgend" sprung up that the Smithsonian was using the BoM as a guide to find archeological sites. People started writing the Smithsonian to ask if it was true so they put together a canned response. I've read it (quite a while ago) and it shows a lack of knowledge as to what the BoM says. This statement should be taken for what it is - a researcher's irritated response to the interruption of his work to answer the same silly question over and over. It hardly proves that no such contact existed. > Furthermore, the American Indian is basically Mongoloid (more >closely related to eastern, central, and northeastern Asia). Present >archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of American Indians >migrated across a land-bridge in the Bering Strait during the last Ice Age >around 30,000 years ago. The Book of Mormon indicates that the first of the >two great civilizations it describes left the Tower of Babel about 2,250 B.C. >whereas the second group left around 600 B.C. You seem to think that all the ancestors of Native Americans came from the same source at the same time. I think modern anthropology would reject this claim, allowing multiple immigrations. The BoM leaves plenty of room for other inhabitants in the Americas beyond those it describes and even gives some hints of contact with other groups. There is simply no conflict here. BTW, the Smithsonian paper does not even reflect the beliefs of their own researchers. Their point 3 (at least in the 1979 version) is that the first contact by sea with the Americas was the Norse in 1000 AD. Betty Meggers of that same institution traces the Olmec culture to sea-bourne connection from China around 1200 BC (_American Anthropologist_ 77, 1-27). The idea that Native Americans are of pure Mongoloid ancestry also does not stand up to modern science. Blood grouping and other evidence is simply not consistent with the old theory. See for example: "?Son los Amerindios up grupo biologicamente homogeneo?" _Cuadernos Americanos_ 152 (May-June 1967) p117-125 G. Albin Matson, et al, "Distribution of hereditary blood groups among Indians of South America. IV. In Chile," _American Journal of Physical Anthropology_ 27 (1967):188 Harold Gladwin, _Men our of Asia_ New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947, pp 63-65 If you want a good (if now a bit dated) summary try the book, _Man Across the Sea. Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts_ Ed. C.L. Riley, J.C. Kelley, C.W. Pennington, and R.L. Rands, Austin, Univ. of Texas Press, 1971. > the elephants described in Ether 9:19 never >existed in North America, See Ludwell H. Johnson, "Men and Elephants in America" _Scientific Monthly_ Oct 1952, pp215-221 > metals supposedly made and used by these >civilizations have never turned up. What about all that gold Cortez and Pizzaro were after? Of course the conventional wisdom used to be that metal began to be used in America around 900 AD. However, recent discoveries have pushed this back to at least before the time of Christ. A good set of references to this and other archeological BoM questions can be found in John L Sorenson's article in the _Ensign_, Sep 1984 (pp27-37) and Oct 1984 (pp13-23). The magazine is put out by the LDS church but the references are mostly to standard scholarly publications. If you want to check it out and can't find it in your local library, try the meetinghouse library in any LDS church. > Archaeologically, the Book of Mormon is a >flop. No, it actually comes off pretty good if you avoid a bunch of unwarrented assumptions and look at more recent archeological discoveries. In fact while I know of many recent discoveries which agree with the BoM where previous belief was contrary, I do not know of any which have cast new doubts on the book since its publication. During the 160 years since its publication the scholarly picture has been moving toward the BoM picture. > Also, Mormon theology consistently indicates that the American Indians are >descendants of the Lamanites, who are supposed to have been Semitic, in fact >Jewish. American Indians are Mongoloid and not of Mediterranean extraction. See the references above. Well, maybe I'll add one more since this particular researcher believes he sees evidence of a Western Mediterranean features in some of the native inhabitants of Mexico: Andrzej Wiercinski, "Inter- and Intrapopulational racial differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban, and Yucatan Maya," _Actas, Documentos, y Memorias, 36a Contreso Internacional de Americanistas_, Lima, 1970 [Long BoM quotes deleted. I think these were intended to show that the BoM people came from Palestine. This point was never in dispute.] > I should note here that I am quoting from a pre-1973 version of the Book of >Mormon. Since that time, I understand it has undergone revisions, that is, >"corrections." Right. One of the original handwritten manuscripts became available and was used to correct printer's errors which had occurred. A complete list of these changes was published in the _Ensign_ about the time this new edition became available although I don't have the exact date. Probably sometime in 1973. > The three witnesses at the front of the Book of Mormon, the ones who witnessed >that they actually saw the plates and the angel which brought them, later said >they saw them with the "eyes of faith." All three of these witnesses later >apostosized from the Mormon faith and were described as thieves and >counterfeiters by Mormon contemporaries. The very witnesses to the validity of >the Book of Mormon are thus described by the Mormons themselves as unreliable. In spite of this they never denied their testimonies, printed to this day in the front of the BoM. Two of them in fact returned to the church. It seems to me that a man who argues with someone he has been a witness for but still remains faithful to that witness in spite of the "falling out" is more to be believed than one who is witness only for his friends. I think the reference to "eyes of faith" is to the requirement that they had to have faith before they could be shown the plates. There is no indication that they did not really see the angel and the plates. Their testimony mentions that they saw them by the power of God. There were another 8 witnesses who saw the plates but not (apparently) the angel. They mention actually handling the plates with their hands. These men also never denied their testimony, also found in the front of the book. > The Book of Mormon has more than 25,000 words quoted from the King James >Bible. The Mormons say that Nephi must have brought the Hebrew Bible with him >and this accounts for the quotations from the Old Testament. It stretches the >limits of credulity to believe that the translations of the inscribed plates >came out in King James English without variation more than 1000 years before >the 1611 Authorized Version was written. And what does that do to New Testament quotations of the Septuigent version of the Old Testament? Scripture quotes older scripture and any translator will naturally go the translation of the original source. Of course there are differences and it is instructive to compare the differences between the Isaiah quotations in the BoM and the KJV with some of the Isaiah material from Qumran. If anybody's interested I can tell you how to get a paper doing just that. > I can't go on. Anyone can see why I refuse to accept, and all legitimate >Christian churches refuse to accept, the Book of Mormon as a valid testimony of >Jesus Christ, and why secular scholars refuse to accept the Book of Mormon >as having any basis in fact. At least Biblical stories have archaeological >evidence to back them up, whereas the Book of Mormon has none. You have presented a very one-sided picture. If you listen only to one side of any story you are likely to be deceived. Would you judge the Catholic faith based only on what Joe Applegate says about it? > As a work of fiction, the Book of Mormon is a masterpiece; I commend its >probable author Solomon Spaulding, who wrote a work called "Manuscript Story," >which was probably later changed and expanded into "Manuscript Found." None of >the anti-Mormonists who discovered "Manuscript Story" believed it was the >manuscript upon which the Book of Mormon was based; rather, they believe that >Spaulding, a retired minister, wrote a later version of his story, as yet >undiscovered, upon which Joseph Smith plagiaristically based his Book of >Mormon. Even so, "Manuscript Story" contains "at least 75 similarities to what >is now the Book of Mormon and this is not to be easily explained away." Please list some of these 75 similarities. Having seen both works I see no reason to believe that there is any connection beyond both comming from New England in about the same time frame. Martin is really stretching things here. Note: The "Spaulding theory" goes back to early attempts to explain away the Book of Mormon. It didn't seem reasonable that someone with Joseph Smith's background could write it so people started looking for other explainations. The favorite was that Joseph has somehow acquired a manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding and used it as the basis for the BoM. This got a bit fanciful, including crediting Sydney Rigdon with adding the religious parts (even though there is no evidence that Rigdon ever met Joseph Smith until well after the BoM publication). Since the Spaulding manuscript had dissappeared there was no way to compare the 2. Then Spaulding's work had the audacity to show up and it became obvious that it could not be the basis for the BoM. It's supporters then decided there must be a second Spaulding work (which of course is still missing) and that must be the real source. I see no justification for this except that these people can't find any explaination they like better.
jp@harvard.harvard.edu (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.07.00.1990.17538@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > The Book of Mormon has more than 25,000 words quoted from the King James >Bible. The Mormons say that Nephi must have brought the Hebrew Bible with him >and this accounts for the quotations from the Old Testament. It stretches >the >limits of credulity to believe that the translations of the inscribed plates >came out in King James English without variation more than 1000 years before >the 1611 Authorized Version was written. I fail to understand how the BoM containing over 25,000 words of the Bible "stretches the limits of credulity [in believing] that the translation" came from a book written in 1611. First off, it is necessary to acknowledge that the section being refered to here, is a mere 3.48% of the whole Book of Mormon. Secondly, the quotes are not exact, but more correct, since the translator, Joseph Smith, with divine knowledge corrected it to what Isaiah really said -- it's important to note that the Bible was first translated into english in 1320 by John Wycliffe, and that by 1611 when the Authorized Version was made the Bible was continously updated and "corrected". Lastly, Nephi didn't bring with him the Hebrew Bible in 600 BC, because it didn't exist; what did exist where copies of the words of Isaiah and it is this which he brought. The largest section which is similiar to the Bible can be found in 2 Nephi from chapters 12 through 24, refering to Isaiah chapters 2 though 14. In 2 Nephi 11:8, Nephi states that he will be reading from the words of Isaiah, and starting in chapter 25 of 2 Nephi, Nephi explains to his people just what Isaiah is talking about. It would seem his people weren't too bright :-) >-- >Sincerely, >Cindy Smith
jp@harvard.harvard.edu (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.5.19.20.13.1990.17569@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: > >******* begin quote ******* > >10. "Christ was the God, the Father of all things...Behold, I am Jesus >Christ. >I am the Father and the Son" (Mosiah 7:27 and Ether 3:14, Book of Mormon). The versus listed here, sound in the manner presented as misleading, considering the rest of Mormon doctrine. In this fashion the BoM would be stating, essentially, what other Christians have been stating since the four councils of the Constantine/Augustus era, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. If the entire versus are shown the meaning changes: Mosiah 7:27 "And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth --" Ether 3:14 "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters." These two versus talk about Jesus Christ, and those who follow him will become his "sons and daughters", but this does not talk about God the Father, the "Almighty", who is our Father whether we accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ or not. God the Father, created us spiritually, and he created Jesus our spiritual brother, our earthly parents gave us a body and Jesus saved us from death and gave us a new life, thus in that sense he our eternal brother through God the Father, and our Father through the salvation from the physical death. >(Brigham Young, in the Journal of >Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 50). The Journal of Discourses is not and has not ever been accepted as LDS doctrine, further, just because an apostle or prophet says something does not make it doctrine, for it up to the membership of the church to pray about the "revelation" for the truthfulness of it, before we can sustain it as doctrine.
jp@harvard.harvard.edu (08/12/90)
> Mormon apostle James Talmage describes the church's teachings as follows in >his book The Articles of Faith: > >That the Mormons reject the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity no >student of the movement can deny, for after quoting the Nicene creed and >early >church theology on the Trinity, Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares: >"It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and >contradictions expressed in words as here...The immateriality of God as >asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance >with >the Scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God's >person >and attributes..." (p. 48). ... >************** End of Quote ***************** > The Kingdom of the Cults > Walter Martin > pp. 202-219 >I think >Mormons want to be Christians, and believe they are Christians, but the >theology of the Latter-day Saints is simply not Christianity. ... >An assertion as to the truthfulness and accuracy of >the Apostles Creed would be a good start. > >Cindy Smith Just prior to this post, I was told thru email that in order to be Christian, I had to believe that Mary is the Mother of God, if I believe everything else and not this I was not a Christian. With this I dug up some references to this... The Church of Jesus Christ made its appearence in 30 AD, by 70 AD apostles were being killed, by the 2nd and 3rd century the following account is given "The attempt of Gnosticism to blend Christianity with Greek philosophy and Eastern mysticism was successfully withstood by the Church, which strengthened itself to resist persecution from without and heresy (especially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity) and schism from within, by developing a uniform organization based on an assumed Apostolic creed in the expanded Baptimal Confession, Apostolic office in the Episcopate, and Apostolic canon of truth in the writings of the N.T. [p. 589 Ency. of Religion and Ethics Vol. 3]" From 325 AD to 421 AD Constantine -- who declared himself head of the Church [this action in violation of Hebrews 5:10 that only God call someone to an office and no one can take it upon themselves], later changed the mode of baptism which Mormons, Baptists, and some others currently have, that is total immersion, so that he could be baptized -- and Augustus held four councils where they set the foundation for the beliefs of the Church, including the Trintity and the Mary being the "God-bearer" (or more loosely the "Mother of God") this doctrine caused such an uproar that it wasn't until the 5th or 6th century that another council set the doctrine as fact. Also, during the initial councils held the Bishops held and created a creed and attributed it to the Apostles. I would say that Cindy Smith's contention that Mormons are not Christian, by today's standards is absolutely correct. The christians of 30 AD and the christians of today, are amazingly different. Mormons, or more precisely, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, call ourselves christian, because we are the same type of Christian that existed when Jesus Christ set up his church in 30 AD, further, we don't follow the standards set by these councils of 325 AD through 421 AD. One other point that needs to aired is that we feel that there was a break in the line of authority; history shows this to be correct. I found something interesting today, baptisms for the dead stopped in 327 AD. ------------------------------------------------------- John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that; I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered. -------------------------------------------------------
bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (08/16/90)
In article <Aug.12.04.19.40.1990.16654@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: | In article <Aug.5.19.07.00.1990.17538@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: | | > One of the major problems with the validity of the Book of Mormon is its | >contention that two great civilizations once flourished on the American | >continent; it describes buildings, machinery, shipping and shipbuilding,[...] | ^^^^^^^^^??? | | The BoM does not give a great deal of geographic information about | the Americas, but the most likely site for it is Mesoamerica, the | area from about Mexico City southward to near or a little beyond | the Yucatan peninsula. Are you claiming that great civilizations | are not consistent with archeology in that region? Check out the | Olmecs and the Mayas. And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in find workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in MACHINERY, and also in iron and copper, and brass and STEEL, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, ... Jarom 1:8 Yes, it says machinery. Of course, an inclined plane is a machine, so this isn't surprising. What _is_ surprising is that it also says _steel_. Where has _steel_ been found in any Mesoamerican dig dating from the relevant period? | > [...] | [...] | > metals supposedly made and used by these | >civilizations have never turned up. | | What about all that gold Cortez and Pizzaro were after? I think that cms was referring to the _steel_ mentioned above. The Nephites (to whom this _steel_ is attibuted) are alleged to have come to the Americas ~600 B.C. and were wiped out by the Lamanites ~428 A.D. so this _steel_ was a tremendous advance for their culture, since the best the Europeans could do was wrought iron until, what, the 17th cent. | Of course the conventional wisdom used to be that metal began to be | used in America around 900 AD. However, recent discoveries have | pushed this back to at least before the time of Christ. Well, "metal use" and making _steel_ are two _very_ different things. Iron use has > 3000 years of history, but it wasn't until the last few centuries that _steel_ was available. | [...] | | > The Book of Mormon has more than 25,000 words quoted from the King James | >Bible.... | | And what does that do to New Testament quotations of the Septuigent | version of the Old Testament? Scripture quotes older scripture and | any translator will naturally go the translation of the original | source. But Joseph Smith wasn't just a translator, was he? The Mormon religion claims that he was a prophet and the translation was `divinely inspired.' No biblical _translator_ that I know of claims to have been divinely inspired (the _authors_ were divinely inspired, not the _translators_). | Of course there are differences and it is instructive ... I think that the real question is, why would a 19th century American translate (divinely inspired from the _original plates_) into 17th century British English? A not insignificant advantage for biblical scholars is that they can go back to the earliest manuscripts. This is not true of the "plates" from which the BoM was taken. | You have presented a very one-sided picture. If you listen only to | one side of any story you are likely to be deceived. Well, I think that what cms was trying to convey is that LDS is the only pantheistic religion which portrays itself as also being a Christian religion. It is the only religion which claims that we can all become gods -- just like God the Father, and his sons Jesus and Satan -- and still portrays itself as being a Christian religion. Regards, -- Will | If no set of moral ideas were truer or bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | better than any other, there would be no bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | sense in preferring civilised morality to with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | savage morality... -- C.S. Lewis
gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu (gt5599d TOLBERT,JASON ALAN) (08/16/90)
What is the Mormon attitude toward black people?
I have heard rumors that the doctrines are racist.
--
TOLBERT,JASON ALAN
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt5599d
ARPA: gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu
[Presumably one of our LDS readers will give us details. There had
been interpretations that prohibited blacks from becoming priests.
Those interpretations are no longer in force. The prohibitions
weren't directly in the Book of Mormon. --clh]vrw@hos1cad.att.com (Verdon R Walker, Jr) (08/17/90)
In article <Aug.8.03.16.38.1990.12605@athos.rutgers.edu>, ssimmons@unix.cie.rpi.edu (Stephen Simmons) writes: > First, let me start by saying that I only know one Mormon family, and > that they are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule. > However, this family believes in Jesus Christ as the only way to > salvation, and because of this, I classify them at least, as > Christian. They say (I think) that Mormons in general believe this. > Mormon netters, what do you say? OK. I'm a Mormon netter and I'll respond. I do indeed believe that Jesus Christ is only way to salvation. This is not an exception to the rule. It is the most basic tenet of the LDS (Mormon) faith. Just to give you an idea, here are some verses from _The Book of Mormon_: "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophecy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26) "And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that save Christ should come all men must perish." (2 Nephi 11:6) "... remember that there is no other way nor means whereby man can be saved, only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ ..." (Helaman 5:9) _The Book of Mormon_ is full of such passages and clearly teaches that salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Couple this with the fact that we accept the Bible as the word of God and it becomes clear that we believe in Jesus Christ. Does that make us Christians? I certainly believe it does. Verdon Walker
cms@dragon.uucp (08/17/90)
In article <Aug.12.05.04.06.1990.17294@athos.rutgers.edu>, frog!jp@harvard.harvard.edu writes: > Just prior to this post, I was told thru email that in order to be > Christian, I had to believe that Mary is the Mother of God, if I > believe everything else and not this I was not a Christian. Generally, I skip messages which say "this is a distortion of what I said," because I can read for myself the original. However, as I made this comment in email, I feel moved to say, this is an incomplete rendering of my remarks and constitutes something of a distortion. As I recall, I noted that there were many things one must believe in order to be a Christian, and acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God is one of them. Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. If a=b and b=c then a=c. I'm glad you posted some of my remarks and responded to them instead of vague email remarks with emendations. I stated several times that I did not care to reproduce all of my arguments, please review the original articles, and you said you would do so. When pressed, I gave you what I considered some of the more glaring Mormon errors, denial that Mary is the mother of God and thus denial that Jesus Christ is God being one of them. (Early church history deleted.) > I would say that Cindy Smith's contention that Mormons are not Christian, > by today's standards is absolutely correct. The christians of 30 AD and > the christians of today, are amazingly different. Mormons, or more > precisely, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, > call ourselves christian, because we are the same type of Christian that > existed when Jesus Christ set up his church in 30 AD, further, we don't > follow the standards set by these councils of 325 AD through 421 AD. I gather by this you mean that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which court decisions have consistently recognized as the Original from which the Utah church split off, practices the true religion, whereas the Utah church is schismatic and teaches a different religion from the one Joseph Smith began. Of course, you argument might be (unless you are Reorganized), "Just because they're earlier doesn't mean they're right, besides, they're not the earliest church anyway, *they're* the schismatics. Our church preaches the true religion." Gee, that sounds familiar. > John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia These are my soul opinions, heartfelt and passionately expressed; they do not represent the official opinions of the Anglican Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, any Protestant Church that I know of (I can't keep track, there are so many), or DRAGON, my computer. Did I miss anyone? I'm sure some would like this as a permenant disclaimer, but my .sig is already long enough already, don't you think? [It's always dangerous to use syllogisms in religion, because words tend to have implications that go beyond the simple statements that logic uses. Your proof that Mary is the Mother of God is surely one of these. While I agree with what you say when it is properly understood, I'd like to say a bit more, for the sake of those to whom the phrase looks simply absurd (and possibly blasphemous). First, the original discussion was not in English. The term used was "theotokos", which is closer to "God-bearer" than "Mother of God". (However even in Greek the term was mean to be attention-getting and perhaps somewhat paradoxical. While the English is probably more extreme, it's not completely inappropriate.) The context was discussions with various groups that could not believe God would really deign to put himself fully into a human. This led to ideas such as God deserting Jesus at the crucifixion, because God would not be willing to suffer. Theotokos was meant to emphasize that God truly did assume a human form, and experienced both birth and death. The term is extreme because of course the idea of being someone's mother normally brings to mind the implication that the person didn't exist before and they were brought into existence through the mother. Obviously no one means to say that Mary brought God into existence. However an older phrase for birth is "bring into the world". According to Christian doctrine, Mary did bring God into the world. --clh]
David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu (08/17/90)
Mr. Hoogasian seems to be yet another individual who refuses to acknowledge that I and other practicing lds (mormons) *have* accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. He has every right to disagree with our interpretations of scripture and doctrines (although it would be nice if he could differentiate between speculation and accepted doctrine), but it is presumptuous in the extreme for him to judge the legitimacy of our acceptance of Christ, or where we will end up in the eternities. That's Christ's job. Lynn
jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Y. Gabler) (08/20/90)
In article <Aug.16.13.16.57.1990.24280@athos.rutgers.edu> vrw@hos1cad.att.com (Verdon R Walker, Jr) writes: >_The Book of Mormon_ is full of such passages and clearly teaches that >salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Couple this >with the fact that we accept the Bible as the word of God and it >becomes clear that we believe in Jesus Christ. Does that make us >Christians? I certainly believe it does. > >Verdon Walker Every Mormon family I have know is relentless to the fact this one may believe in Jesus, but if they are not _baptized_ they are still not saved ( taking the verse from John, out of context from the rest of the Bible ). Doesn't Ephesians 2:8,9 state that there is _no_ _act_ by which we can earn salvation? That it is _soley_ a gift from God that we can lift no finger to achieve, but only the spiritual and conscious _acceptance_ of His death. jase Jason Gabler UCD Computing Services, Data Communications Group *cable grunt* ccjason@castor.ucdavis.edu jygabler@ucdavis.bitnet gods-tale-request@ucdavis.edu [While I have problems with saying that baptism is necessary to salvation, this is certainly not a peculiarly LDS idea. It was common in the early church, and Catholic theology has held it to varying degrees. Catholics make allowances for people who are unable to be baptized ("baptism of intent"), etc., but basically think of baptism as being essential. --clh]
gt5182b@prism.gatech.edu (gt5182b gt5182b LESTER,ROBERT WILLIAM) (08/20/90)
I don't want to get into the archeological side of this discussion. Hal L. seems to being a fine enough job. But I would like to present some ideas in order to discuss the theological and philosophical differences between LDS beliefs and that of other Christian groups as was suggested by Cindy Smith in an article in talk.religion.misc. I'll use Will's article as a starting point. In article <Aug.16.12.33.11.1990.23316@athos.rutgers.edu> bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >Well, I think that what cms was trying to convey is that LDS is >the only pantheistic religion which portrays itself as also being >a Christian religion. It is the only religion which claims that >we can all become gods -- just like God the Father, and his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >sons Jesus and Satan -- and still portrays itself as being a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Christian religion. You seem to imply that Jesus and Satan can both become/are gods. I don't know if you did this purposely or not. But that is not LDS belief. I think you are confusing this with the belief that all the spirit children of our Heavenly Father lived with him before the creation of the Earth. These spirits included Jesus and Satan(Lucifer) and the spirits of every person who ever has, is presently or will inhabit the Earth. But in this spirit world Lucifer, rebelled against our Father and Jesus and lost any chance he had of taking part in the Lord's plan to save his children. So yes you can technically say that Satan and even all of us are the spirit brothers of Jesus Christ. However, "spritually" Jesus is worlds apart from any of us. To LDS Christians, Jesus is our Savior. ...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29. He overcame the world in every sense (i.e. temptation, death...) and is now crowned with the glory given him by the Father. Perhaps one mistake we make in teaching our doctrine of pre-existence of spirits is in overemphasizing, at times, our relationship to Christ as siblings. Since, Jesus is our Creator,our Redeemer,and now in a spiritual sense our Father, we (LDS) need to be careful when we refer to Jesus as our elder brother. No matter how this doctrine might seem to others to diminish the role of Christ in our religion, let me assure you that it does not. Regards, Rob ... a real live Mormon in Georgia .... : ARPA: gt5182b@prism.gatech.edu
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/21/90)
In article <Aug.16.12.33.11.1990.23316@athos.rutgers.edu> bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >In article <Aug.12.04.19.40.1990.16654@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >| In article <Aug.5.19.07.00.1990.17538@athos.rutgers.edu> cms@dragon.uucp writes: >| I questioned Cindy's assertion that the Book of Mormon mentioned machinery. Will corrects me: > And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the > land and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in > precious things, and in find workmanship of wood, in buildings, > and in MACHINERY, and also in iron and copper, and brass and > STEEL, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the > ground, ... > Jarom 1:8 >Yes, it says machinery. Of course, an inclined plane is a machine, >so this isn't surprising. What _is_ surprising is that it also says >_steel_. Where has _steel_ been found in any Mesoamerican dig dating >from the relevant period? You are right, I overlooked that. As for steel, I don't know of any finds in Mesoamerica of steel made from iron in the relevant period but this leaves 2 possibilities: 1. It simply hasn't been found. Quite possible considering that they probably never had much of it to begin with and it would corrode rapidly in that cimate. 2. The "steel" was a tempered version of some other metal such as copper, bronze, or tumbaga. This is likely also the source of the steel used in the Old Testament for bows. (2 Sam 22:35, Job 20:24, Jer 15:12) ... >Well, "metal use" and making _steel_ are two _very_ different things. >Iron use has > 3000 years of history, but it wasn't until the last >few centuries that _steel_ was available. I think you are confusing first availability of steel with the time it was produced in large quantities. The _Encyclopedea Britannica_ describes how "shortly after" (unfortunately they do not give exact dates here) the Greeks got iron in 1000 BC they began heating layers of it between layers of charcoal, effectively making steel. Also the earlier iron was produced in a spongy matrix and hammered into shape. That hammering is a way to make steel, ask anyone with blacksmith experience. >I think that the real question is, why would a 19th century American >translate (divinely inspired from the _original plates_) into 17th >century British English? The language is what is known as "formal language" and was used on formal occasions well past 1830. Check out some of Webster's speeches given after this time. To have used "common" language for the sacred would have been an offence (and still is to some people).
wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com (08/21/90)
In article <Aug.16.12.33.11.1990.23316@athos.rutgers.edu>, bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >I think that cms was referring to the _steel_ mentioned above. The >Nephites (to whom this _steel_ is attibuted) are alleged to have come >to the Americas ~600 B.C. and were wiped out by the Lamanites ~428 A.D. >so this _steel_ was a tremendous advance for their culture, since the >best the Europeans could do was wrought iron until, what, the 17th cent. Granted, the mention of steel and iron in the BoM is *surprising*, moreover, archeological evidence of iron and steel in Ancient America is presently lacking. I am not too bothered by that for several reasons: the Mesoamerican climate is not too condusive for the preservation of iron and steel implements (ie., they rust) and the archeological record for Mesoamerica is still incomplete. Frankly, I would feel rather uneasy if my faith depended on the placement of an archeologist's trench. Still, Mormons have had to play this archeological waiting game several times before: ie., the wheel, elephants, silk-like material, etc. and our patience has paid off thus far. Iron tools and implements discovered thus far in Mesoamerica seem to be meteoric iron which had been hammered into various shapes rather than smelted. Presently, I am holding out for evidence of smelted iron work, but I am not expecting it's discovery in the near future. There are other considerations: any good reference book on the history of steel production will testify to its antiquity, it should also be noted that the production of steel was usually a "family secret" that could be handed down or lost. Iron production, anciently, was in the same situation, the necessary knowledge could also be easily lost. In the case of the BoM, one could make a good argument that the knowledge of iron smelting was lost. There are several passages throughout the BoM that describe the crafts being practiced at that particular point in time. The last time steel making is included in those lists (Jarom 1:8) can be dated around 400 BC, and the last time ironworking is mentioned (Mosiah 11:8) would be around 160 BC. >I think that the real question is, why would a 19th century American >translate (divinely inspired from the _original plates_) into 17th >century British English? I have heard so many variations on this charge and in every case it leaves me rather confused. In the first place, it seems to be based on some simplistic view of the translation process, sort of, God just gave the translation to Joseph Smith verbatum. From the beginning, it has been clear to Mormons that the translation process was not so simplistic and that it involved mental exertion on the part of JS. The nineth section of the _Doctrine and Covenants_ (which deals directly with the translation of the BoM) refutes that idea: the eighth and nineth verses state: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I wuld give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, ..." As for using the style of the Authorized Version, what is wrong with that? In 1829 the Authorized Version was also the "authorized style." >A not insignificant advantage for biblical scholars is that they can >go back to the earliest manuscripts. This is not true of the "plates" >from which the BoM was taken. I think that this "advantage" is a bit ficticious. The earliest existing manuscripts of the NT are copies of copies of copies. Even further, you have no idea what influences were exerted on the existing written records. For instance, there is a great deal of debate on whether an oral tradition existed among the earliest Christians and whether that oral tradition was considered even more important than the written tradition. Furthermore, there are several passages, ie. The Sermon on the Mount, that appear in some versions and are not included in other copies. Part of the debate suggests that the included portions are accurate and their inclusion is based on the now lost Oral tradition. >Well, I think that what cms was trying to convey is that LDS is >the only pantheistic religion which portrays itself as also being >a Christian religion. It is the only religion which claims that >we can all become gods -- just like God the Father, and his >sons Jesus and Satan -- and still portrays itself as being a >Christian religion. Well, your sarcasm is duely noted (I promise to count to ten before I press on: 1, 2, 3, ...). I can't claim to read your mind, but I suspect that you meant to say polytheistic instead of pantheistic. I thought that pantheism suggests that God and the laws and forces of nature are one, while polytheism states a belief in a multple number of Gods. The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. Worship is reserved to the Father, whereas polytheism usually distributes one's worship among the several dieties. While a person might hurtle the term "polythestic" at Mormons, just as they also seem to enjoy taunting us with the term "cult," I usually shrug it off as the actions of one more intent on creating barriers rather than bridges. It would be interesting sometime to talk about oneness, as Mormonism sees it, for it touches not just the character of God, but includes the relationship of man and God, man and man, man and his environment, the purpose of the atonement, and so on. To simply scream "Polytheism" is so utterly *shallow* that I can hardly contain myself. For example, you state in your post that Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers (a sort of damned by association argument), what you seem to leave out is that Mormonism teaches the universal spiritual brotherhood of all mankind, and that each individual is free to choose his way. The unspoken suggestion in your post is that Christ and Satan have the same agenda, and that is a damnable lie! I would think, that apart from whether Mormonism can be called Christianity, a more troublesome point would be whether a person who is so quick to misrepresent (and in such a sarcastic manner) can be called a Christian. -- Willard C. Smith att!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/21/90)
In article <Aug.16.12.47.15.1990.23548@athos.rutgers.edu> gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu (gt5599d TOLBERT,JASON ALAN) writes: >What is the Mormon attitude toward black people? >I have heard rumors that the doctrines are racist. The LDS attitude is that they are children of God just like the rest of us and should be treated as such. We should love them as we should any of our fellowmen. I wish I could claim that there are no prejudiced LDS people, but I'm afraid there are - we aren't perfect. I do believe that the LDS are probably less prejudiced than the average person and I've noticed that the active ones are less likely to be prejudiced than those who are members in name only (probably true for most churches). There was for many years a prohibition against Blacks holding the priesthood. This was based on our belief that we lived as spirits before we came here and that each of us was given an earthly mission according to what God decided was right for us. For long periods of time only the descendants of Aaron could hold the priesthood. Then after Jesus life it this calling was extended to a larger group, and finally to everybody. Even while this prohibition was in effect church leaders consistently urged members to treat all people with respect, saying that we had no right to mistreat or abuse anybody because of race.
wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com (08/24/90)
In article <Aug.16.12.33.11.1990.23316@athos.rutgers.edu>, bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: >I think that cms was referring to the _steel_ mentioned above. The >Nephites (to whom this _steel_ is attibuted) are alleged to have come >to the Americas ~600 B.C. and were wiped out by the Lamanites ~428 A.D. >so this _steel_ was a tremendous advance for their culture, since the >best the Europeans could do was wrought iron until, what, the 17th cent. Granted, the mention of steel and iron in the BoM is *surprising*, moreover, archeological evidence of iron and steel in Ancient America is presently lacking. I am not too bothered by that for several reasons: the Mesoamerican climate is not too condusive for the preservation of iron and steel implements (ie., they rust) and the archeological record for Mesoamerica is still incomplete. Frankly, I would feel rather uneasy if my faith depended on the placement of an archeologist's trench. Still, Mormons have had to play this archeological waiting game several times before: ie., the wheel, elephants, silk-like material, etc. and our patience has paid off thus far. Iron tools and implements discovered thus far in Mesoamerica seem to be meteoric iron which had been hammered into various shapes rather than smelted. Presently, I am holding out for evidence of smelted iron work, but I am not expecting it's discovery in the near future. There are other considerations: any good reference book on the history of steel production will testify to its antiquity, it should also be noted that the production of steel was usually a "family secret" that could be handed down or lost. Iron production, anciently, was in the same situation, the necessary knowledge could also be easily lost. In the case of the BoM, one could make a good argument that the knowledge iron smelting was lost. There are several passages throughout the BoM that describe the crafts being practiced at that particular point in time. The last time steel making is included in those lists (Jarom 1:8) can be dated around 400 BC, and the last time ironworking is mentioned (Mosiah 11:8) would be around 160 BC. >I think that the real question is, why would a 19th century American >translate (divinely inspired from the _original plates_) into 17th >century British English? I have heard so many variations on this charge and in every case it leaves me rather confused. In the first place, it seems to be based on some simplistic view of the translation process, sort of, God just gave the translation to Joseph Smith verbatum. From the beginning, it has been clear to Mormons that the translation process was not so simplistic and that it involved mental exertation on the part of JS. The nineth section of the _Doctrine and Covenants_ (which deals directly with the translation of the BoM) refutes that idea: the eighth and nineth verses state: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I wuld give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, ..." As for using the style of the Authorized Version, what is wrong with that? In 1829 the Authorized Version was also the "authorized style." >A not insignificant advantage for biblical scholars is that they can >go back to the earliest manuscripts. This is not true of the "plates" >from which the BoM was taken. I think that this "advantage" is a bit ficticious. The earliest existing manuscripts of the NT are copies of copies of copies. Even further, you have no idea what influences were exerted on the existing written records. For instance, there is a great deal of debate on whether an oral tradition existed among the earliest Christians and whether that oral tradition was considered even more important than the written tradition. For example, there are portions of the NT that are missing from the earliest existing copies, but are included in the later copies. Some of the debate suggests that the inclusion of the material in later copies is from the oral tradition, which was considered even more important than the written tradition. >Well, I think that what cms was trying to convey is that LDS is >the only pantheistic religion which portrays itself as also being >a Christian religion. It is the only religion which claims that >we can all become gods -- just like God the Father, and his >sons Jesus and Satan -- and still portrays itself as being a >Christian religion. Well, your sarcasm is duely noted (I promise to count to ten before I press on: 1, 2, 3, ...). I can't claim to read your mind, but I suspect that you meant to say polytheistic instead of pantheistic. I thought that pantheism suggests that God and the laws and forces of nature are one, while polytheism states a belief in a multple number of Gods. The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. Worship is reserved to the Father, whereas polytheism usually distributes one's worship among the several dieties. While a person might hurtle the term "polythestic" at Mormons, just as they also seem to enjoy taunting us with the term "cult," I usually shrug it off as the actions of one more intent on creating barriers rather than bridges. It would be interesting sometime to talk about oneness, as Mormonism sees it, for it touches not just the character of God, but includes the relationship of man and God, man and man, and man and his environment. As we see it the entire foundation of the atonement of Jesus Christ is based on re-estabilishing oneness. To simply scream "Polytheism" is so utterly *shallow* that I can hardly contain myself. For example, you state in your post that Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan are brothers (a sort of damned by association argument), what you seem to leave out is that Mormonism teaches the universal spiritual brotherhood of all mankind, and that each individual is free to choose his way. The unspoken suggestion in your post is that Christ and Satan have the same agenda, and that is a damnable lie! I would think, that apart from whether Mormonism can be called Christianity, a more troublesome point would be whether a person who is so quick to misrepresent (and in such a sarcastic manner) can be called a Christian. -- Willard C. Smith (708) 979-0024 att!iwsgw!wcsa "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."
george@watcgl.waterloo.edu (George Reimer) (08/24/90)
In article <Aug.19.22.49.27.1990.16418@athos.rutgers.edu> jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Y. Gabler) writes: >In article <Aug.16.13.16.57.1990.24280@athos.rutgers.edu> vrw@hos1cad.att.com (Verdon R Walker, Jr) writes: >>_The Book of Mormon_ is full of such passages and clearly teaches that >>salvation comes through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Couple this >>with the fact that we accept the Bible as the word of God and it >>becomes clear that we believe in Jesus Christ. Does that make us >>Christians? I certainly believe it does. >> >>Verdon Walker > >Every Mormon family I have know is relentless to the fact this one may believe >in Jesus, but if they are not _baptized_ they are still not saved ( taking >the verse from John, out of context from the rest of the Bible ). > Keeping things in context is key to understanding Biblical teachings. The New Testament teaches us to : 1. repent - admit you were wrong and commmit to change 2. be baptized - watery grave symbolicly accepts Christ payment ie. your death to the world's ways 3. receive the Holy Spirit - gift from God that gives you the strength to endure to the end Christ said many would call him Lord but it was those who *did* what He said who would enter into His kingdom. There is a mandate to action, not just belief. And even after point number three, you are not yet saved. You must endure to your end ( or Christ's return if that comes first ) and *then* you will be saved. Your acceptance to Christ's calling is just the beginning of the arduous journey to perfection. -- "I almost think that in certain cases yes, and in others, no....." George egroeG Reimer remieR
jp@bespin.harvard.edu (John Pimentel) (08/24/90)
>>I think you have proved one point - the LDS are not a Christian church by the >>common definitions of other christian churches. > > no. they're not Christians because Christian churches say so - Isn't that special :) Of course they won't say it, if they did, they would in effect say that they are not. > they're not Christians because their doctrines directly contradict > various basic foundational issues that the Bible sets out as > mandatory to call oneself a Christian. Well, that's questionable. Let's take for example: Christ organizing the church Adventists/Baptists/Disciples of Christ/Unitarians believe that he did not, that his apostles/follwers did. Episcopalians/Roman Catholics believe that he did and they are the church (singly). Neglecting to mention that the RCC started in 1054 AD, while the Episcopalians (or more correctly Protestant Episcopal Church in 1789 or was that the Methodist Episcopal in 1784, both in the US) Mormons (LDS of 1830 AD a continuation of the Church of Jesus Christ of 30 AD) believe that he did also, further that he ordained 12 Apostles (just as we have now). LDS believe that there are offices namely, apostles (mentioned above), evangelists/seventy, pastors/bishops, high priests, elders, teachers, priests and deacons (of which we have all of these offices -- the scripture references to these offices is available upon request). Another example: Virgin Birth/Immaculate Conception/"Mother of God" Adventists -- took upon flesh, conceived of the Holy Spirit Baptists -- "Mother of God", took upon him his second character[Person] Episcopalians -- believe in Virgin Birth and "Mother of God" Disciples of Christ -- are split as to whether or not there was a virgin birth. Roman Catholics -- believe in Immaculate Conception (was free from original sin from her [Mary's] conception -- provided just in case you didn't know). Mormons -- Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, begotten of the Father. Lutherans -- Christ conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary. Methodists -- Christ's mother was mortal and his Father was immortal. > some extraordinarily > prominent breaks with Scripture are: that God was once a man, > who somehow "earned" his Godhood, and that men can do the same - Personally, I like the sound of that. That I could be like Him, now, will I get there? That's the problem, but nothing's impossible, just difficult. If you want to sell yourself short, that's your business, but I haven't found anywhere in the scriptures where it can not be done/allowed. > hence denying man's essential hopelessly sinful nature; that Ah, but that's where the atonement comes in, unless you think that's only for "original sin". > Jesus Christ took several wives and fathered children; that That's news to me. There's speculation that he may * a * wife, more speculation that he might have had **two**, but several, is news to this LDS. Children??? More speculation, that's news to me. Mind you, I am not denying this speculation, just labeling it as such. If you want to speculate on these...all the power to you. > Christ and Satan are brothers; that Hell does not exist; that If Christ (more accuratly Jesus) is the Son of the Father and Satan/Lucifier was thrown out of Heaven -- refer you to Rev 12: ?? ,then at some point they were brothers (read spirit brothers). As to hell, we, believe that those who turn away from Jesus Christ and the Gospel once they have perfect knowledge of it or who blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (fine example would be Satan) go to what is called outer? darkness where they will spend eternity, everyone else will receive some degree of glory. > oh, it's a viable "religion". so are Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, > and the rest. the whole point, tho, is that Mormonism is not > Christianity, despite the fact that it borrows much "Christian" > lingo, along with greatly modified doctrine. Tim, I can only say this: There are many churches now in the world, who claim to be the "True Church", many of which came out of the Protestant Reformation (Lutheranism cir. 1517, Radical Sects cir 1520 [Baptists, in all their varieties, Quakers, Congregationals and Unitarians], Church of England 1534 [Episcopals and Methodists and variations thereof], Calvinism cir 1536 [Presbyterian, various reformed churches -- of which came the United Brethren Church] ) didn't have authority to start there respective churches from the Roman Catholic Church, however, I have been told that authority to start a church is in the Bible. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox came into being in 1054 AD, prior to this it was a state religion starting in 307 AD, after the Christians of the time were fed to the lions (just a sport), and the Apostles were killed. Now the RCC will tell you that Peter handed the keys of the Priesthood to the First Pope of the Church of Rome. Unless this person was one of the Bishops that met in the first of the four councils, then Peter lived a long time, at least until 321 AD, when Constantine declared himself the Pope. BTW, where is the office of Pope in the Bible? >Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com >Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 So, what's left is to study the scriptures and pray for guidance, and accept what you get. --- ------------------------------------------------------- John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that; I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered.
jp@bespin.harvard.edu (John Pimentel) (08/24/90)
In article <Aug.17.03.57.51.1990.7851@athos.rutgers.edu> you write: >In article <Aug.12.05.04.06.1990.17294@athos.rutgers.edu>, frog!jp@harvard.harvard.edu writes: > >> Just prior to this post, I was told thru email that in order to be >> Christian, I had to believe that Mary is the Mother of God, if I >> believe everything else and not this I was not a Christian. > > Generally, I skip messages which say "this is a distortion of what I said," >because I can read for myself the original. However, as I made this comment in >email, I feel moved to say, this is an incomplete rendering of my remarks and >constitutes something of a distortion. As I recall, I noted that there were >many things one must believe in order to be a Christian, and acknowledging that >Jesus Christ is God is one of them. > > Mary is the Mother of Jesus. > Jesus is God. > Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. Well, since you ID'd yourself, I don't need your permission to post an attribution to you. What you said in your email to me was: Do you believe that 1) Mary is the Mother of God, or 2) Mormons later modified this to Mary is the Mother of the Son of God. If you don't believe the former, you are not a christian. This argument clearly states, to me at least, that the ****ONLY**** qualifier for being Christian is the belief that Mary is the Mother of God. There is nowhere in this equation any other mention of other qualifiers, thus I am left to assume that you mean that this is the only test, with the other qualifiers being thrown out. > I gather by this you mean that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of >Latter-day Saints, which court decisions have consistently recognized as the >Original from which the Utah church split off, practices the true religion, Cindy, I am really glad you brought this up. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a spin-off of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1844 when Joseph Smith was martyered (sp?). Later, when the "original" move to Utah, the courts (or more correctly the government was enforcing a non-polgamy law) and desolved the church's charter/corporation (or whatever you wish to call it) and seized the property, but this didn't work either, the church kept on going. Eventually, the church was able to by back all that was taken from them and the charter was reinstated. To my knowledge the church is recorded to have been formed in 1830. Unless some new rules of math come into play, I would suspect that 1830 AD comes before 1844 AD. Wouldn't you say?. >one Joseph Smith began. Of course, you argument might be (unless you >are Reorganized), "Just because they're earlier doesn't mean they're right, To set the record straight, I seriously doubt it will effect your narrow view of reality, the Reorganized started because they felt the Leadership should be a blood line, not a God called and appointed line. Later, other reasons for their existance where needed to justify why they in existance. Currently, they have 600,000 members and we have 7.5 million. BTW, polygamy was practiced by and is still practiced by citizens of the US who were/are not members. They were/are not sought after, the reason lies elsewhere as to the government's excuse for the confiscation. Your signature is nice, but you forgot to mentioned your church which spun off (unauthorized) from the Church of England which spun off the Roman Catholic Church (unauthorized). Just thought I'd let you know you are member of an unauthorized church, unless you care to tell me that you (your church) obtained authority from the Bible. Or should I say that you were in existence since the time of Christ? --- ------------------------------------------------------- John Pimentel ...!{decvax!mit-eddie!harvard}!frog!jp Disclaimer: The opinion presented, is just that; I take full responsiblity for those parts I've entered. [I allowed this response because the original was about as ill-tempered. However both of them fail to show the respect I would like to see among participants. --clh]
zappala@larisa.usc.edu (Daniel Zappala) (08/25/90)
In article <Aug.19.22.49.27.1990.16418@athos.rutgers.edu> jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Y. Gabler) writes: > >Every Mormon family I have know is relentless to the fact this one may believe >in Jesus, but if they are not _baptized_ they are still not saved ( taking >the verse from John, out of context from the rest of the Bible ). > >Doesn't Ephesians 2:8,9 state that there is _no_ _act_ by which we can earn >salvation? That it is _soley_ a gift from God that we can lift no finger >to achieve, but only the spiritual and conscious _acceptance_ of His >death. > This discussion compelled me to write about why I think baptism is essential to Christianity. Baptism signifies not only your acceptance of Christ as Savior, but also your desire to follow his teachings in the context of a Church. A Christian heart desires to live Christ's example fully, and so that means both personally, in a family, and in social setting. A Church is the social expression of common beliefs and practices, and so without it you are not completely living your faith. A further reason a Church is important is to maintain unity in Christian beliefs; through unity an individual is less likely to go astray. A true Church will also afford the community of believers to receive guideance/revelations from the Holy Spirit. "wherever two or more are gathered in my name..." Baptism also frequently involves laying of the hands, which gives the person the gift of the Holy Ghost. This cannot be received without proper apostolic authority. So why would a Christian not want to be baptized, unless he/she did not truly want to live out Christ's example in a powerful way? Wasn't Christ himself baptized as an example for us? If you want to get technical, and discuss those people who live Christian lives, but don't have a chance to actually be baptized during their life, then I'm sure the Heavenly Father will provide some means for them to be baptized later. Daniel Zappala
timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) (08/25/90)
In article <Aug.20.22.31.58.1990.6607@athos.rutgers.edu> wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: >In article <Aug.16.12.33.11.1990.23316@athos.rutgers.edu>, bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: > >for Mesoamerica is still incomplete. Frankly, I would feel rather >uneasy if my faith depended on the placement of an archeologist's >trench. Still, Mormons have had to play this archeological waiting >game several times before: ie., the wheel, elephants, silk-like material, >etc. and our patience has paid off thus far. personally, i'd feel GREATLY uneasy about my faith if i was unable to see that what i believe fits together cohesively. >>I think that the real question is, why would a 19th century American >>translate (divinely inspired from the _original plates_) into 17th >>century British English? > >I have heard so many variations on this charge and in every case it >leaves me rather confused. In the first place, it seems to be based >on some simplistic view of the translation process, sort of, God just >gave the translation to Joseph Smith verbatum. From the beginning, [some deleted for brevity] >nineth verses state: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed >that I wuld give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to >ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in >your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, ..." eh? since when has God been in the business of deliberately making it difficult to come to Him and understanding His Word? What was the purpose of Christ's parables, except that they were object lessons that simple folk could understand? To attribute to God that He wants to make it tough on us strikes me as a clever way of man trying to justify himself by his own efforts - man's arrogance shows through again. Christ spoke to the layman in his own language - the Jewish religious hierarchy (eletist snobs) cast aspersions on Christ because he was not "educated" like they were. So why would it be in His nature to *not* simply "give it unto" His flock, since that was already His modus operandi?? >The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only >a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one >for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many >seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only >one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. why would i want to worship a small God? certainly this God-committee that you describe falls far short of omniscience and omnipotence. this reminds me of the question James Kirk asked in the somewhat inane movie Star Trek V: "What would God want with a Starship?" I would reword this as "What use would God have for a decision-making committee, where He only served as a sort-of chairman?" if God is who He claims in the Old Testament, there is only ONE God, and none other like Him. surely if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then He has no need of advisors??? >Worship is >reserved to the Father, this would seem to make Christ out to be merely an errand-boy, by all means an exhalted errand-boy, but one nonetheless, not worthy of worship. there is no need to separate Almighty God into three separate gods merely to "simplify" understanding of the Trinity. there is a point in nature where water (yes, h2o) exhibits the characteristics of its three states (liquid, solid and gas) all at the same time. now, why should a God who is able to create the Universe be limited in the forms which He make take? >For example, you state in your post that Mormonism teaches that Jesus >and Satan are brothers (a sort of damned by association argument), >what you seem to leave out is that Mormonism teaches the universal >spiritual brotherhood of all mankind, and that each individual is >free to choose his way. The unspoken suggestion in your post is that >Christ and Satan have the same agenda, and that is a damnable lie! you've missed the point. Christ is not some sort of subordinate to another God - He IS God. Satan was an angel - *not* a god, though he dreamed that up in his own mind when he sought to challenge God. Satan was an angel - and what are angels? they are *creations*. you have also read more into the statement than was there, by suggesting that the post was saying that Christ and Satan have the same "agenda." since Satan is our Accuser - constantly before God pointing his finger at us and telling God that we are not worthy of His mercy (which is true enough, based on our own merits) yet Christ died to Justify us, then i have a hard time imagining a Christian suggesting their "equality." Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"
bralick@finglas.entmoot.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (08/25/90)
In article <Aug.20.22.31.58.1990.6607@athos.rutgers.edu> wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: |In article <Aug.16.12.33.11.1990.23316@athos.rutgers.edu>, bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: | >A not insignificant advantage for biblical scholars is that they can | >go back to the earliest manuscripts. This is not true of the "plates" | >from which the BoM was taken. | | I think that this "advantage" is a bit ficticious. The earliest existing | manuscripts of the NT are copies of copies of copies. Even further, | you have no idea what influences were exerted on the existing written | records. A copy of a copy is better than nothing at all. | >Well, I think that what cms was trying to convey is that LDS is | >the only pantheistic religion which portrays itself as also being | >a Christian religion. It is the only religion which claims that | >we can all become gods -- just like God the Father, and his | >sons Jesus and Satan -- and still portrays itself as being a | >Christian religion. | | Well, your sarcasm is duely noted (I promise to count to ten before | I press on: 1, 2, 3, ...). I can't claim to read your mind, but I | suspect that you meant to say polytheistic instead of pantheistic. Right. Sorry. I meant that LDS is the only polytheistic religion which portrays itself as also being a Christian religion. But what sarcasm? Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't Jesus and Lucifer both "spirit children" of God the Father according to LDS doctrine? Aren't they then both "sons of God the Father?" According to LDS doctrine, isn't Jesus's distinction that of being the first- born (among many)? | The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only | a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one | for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many | seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only | one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. Which is to avoid saying that there is a multiplicity of gods. You seem to be identifying God with "an agenda." So according to Mormon theology, is God some sort of multiple being? Isn't to "act AS *one*" quite a bit different from _being_ *one*? | Worship is reserved to the Father, This then implies that the LDS does not worship either Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. | whereas polytheism usually distributes one's | worship among the several dieties. While a person might hurtle the | term "polythestic" at Mormons, just as they also seem to enjoy taunting | us with the term "cult," I usually shrug it off as the actions of one | more intent on creating barriers rather than bridges. Well, drawing distinctions is not so much _creating_ barriers, as noticing the ones that already exist. Similarly, building bridges is different from ignoring the fact that there is a distance (difference) to span. Polytheism is different from monotheism. Since Christianity is a monotheistic religion and Mormonism is polytheistic I fail to understand how Mormonism can be called a Christian religion. Note that I am not using this a pejorative, there are many non-Christian religions in the world and (at least several) polytheistic religions. What I fail to understand is how the LDS can differ from Christian religions in several of the defining characteristics of Christianity but still claim to be a Christian religion. | To simply scream "Polytheism" is so utterly *shallow* that I can | hardly contain myself. Calm down. I assure you that I didn't scream it. I of course can't know what you _heard_ when you read it. | For example, you state in your post that Mormonism teaches that Jesus | and Satan are brothers Is that incorrect? Then who was Lucifer's "spirit father?" Doesn't every being have a "spirit father?" Are you stating that according to Mormon doctrine Jesus and Lucifer are _not_ (spirit) brothers? | (a sort of damned by association argument), Not really. I am merely pointing out that it is at variance with all other Christian teachings that I am aware of. If I am wrong or if you know of any counter-examples, then let me know. | what you seem to leave out is that Mormonism teaches the universal | spiritual brotherhood of all mankind, and that each individual is | free to choose his way. The unspoken suggestion in your post is that | Christ and Satan have the same agenda, and that is a damnable lie! Well, I never referred to _agendas_ at all. In fact, _agendas_ never even crossed my mind. _You_ mentioned agendas. Of course you are free to read anything you like into my post, but you should refrain from implying that something that I _didn't say_ was a lie. That is silly. I guess I agree with you; what I didn't say was a lie. | I would think, that apart from whether Mormonism can be called | Christianity, a more troublesome point would be whether a person | who is so quick to misrepresent (and in such a sarcastic manner) | can be called a Christian. What did I misrepresent? I _may have_ made a mistake, but then again, you didn't refute the `brotherhood' of Jesus and Lucifer, either. Nor did you refute the polytheistic nature of the LDS. You did refute the statement that Jesus and Satan have the "same agenda," but I didn't say that. So it seems that it is _you_ misrepresenting me. Finally, it is _not_ more troublesome what a given individual can be `called' than whether a religion systematically misrepresents itself. Regards, -- [I confess to some sympathy with wcsa in this exchange. It's not as if mainstream Christians were simple monotheists. The question of how the Father and Son can both be God without having two gods, and what the relationship is between the two of them, is a rather involved one, that tries to do justice to a variety of Biblical evidence and Christian experience. It's clear that LDS thought is juggling with the same problems, and trying to avoid going off any of the obvious deep ends. They certainly put the pieces together differently than I do, and I find their picture unacceptable in several ways. But I'm reluctant to look at the complexity and simply say "polytheism". A similar look at mainstream Christianity from, e.g., a Jewish perspective, would likely come to the same conclusion. In fact I find a suspicious similarity between some of wcsa's comments and the Antiochene approach to the Trinity. --clh]
timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) (08/27/90)
(sorry for the non-attribution. it was lost during the edit session.) >The Journal of Discourses is not and has not ever been accepted as LDS >doctrine, further, just because an apostle or prophet says something >does not make it doctrine, for it up to the membership of the church >to pray about the "revelation" for the truthfulness of it, before we >can sustain it as doctrine. terrific. if the revelation of a "prophet of God" can be decided upon concerning its "trutfullness" then how seriously can such a prophet or his revelations be taken? I don't recall Isaiah or Elijah or Nehemiah having the truth of their words "voted on" by the people. Certainly King David, a man whom God truly loved, never questioned the words of the prophets God sent, though Nehemiah's words condemned him. Even Ahab, though he hated Elijah and sought to kill him, never questioned the authority of Elijah's words as God's Prophet. (of course, these prophets had something going for them; rather, i should say, some ONE. and everything they prophesied came to pass, because it was God who had spoken, not them. it must have been a truly awesomely frightening thing to be God's Prophet, since they knew that what had been spoken would surely come to pass; perhaps not in the current generation, but it was sure nontheless.) now, you're telling us that (for instance) Apostle Bruce McConkie's *very* interesting condemnation of the seeking of a personal relation- ship with Christ, as a *heresy*, might not be necessarily "correct"? as a Christian, i have to really wonder about such a condemnation, since having a personal relationship with Christ is what it *means* to be a Christian! (if you doubt that McConkie said this, i *can* find it for you, tho it might take me a little while - the text of his message was pub- lished verbatim in the deseret news, a utah newspaper more often noted for its coverage of "church news" than "events".) i keep hearing about how "we don't believe <various particular doctrines> anymore" from mormon aquaintances, regarding things that joseph smith, brigham young, and various and sundry other mormon prophets have said was "the word of God." personally, i have lots of trouble with a God who can't seem to make up His mind. as far as i know, my God hasn't changed a whit - He is the Self-Existent One, the Alpha and Omega. if He is God, then wouldn't it seem logical that He and His Word are Perfect and Consistent, in no need of updating? (please don't suggest that God changed His mind about saving Gentiles as well as Jews (now THERE is a peculiar term i've heard from the mouths of mormons, regarding the rest of the world - including Jews!) after Christ's ministry. Paul notes in Romans that Isaiah had already proph- esied that this would happen; long before Jesus was born in bethlehem. and before you say that He changed his mind about destroying Nineveh, it *was* ultimately destroyed, but a generation after Jonah's prophesy. God didn't say to Nineveh that it would be destroyed in a specific time period - though Jonah may not have wanted Nineveh to be spared at the time.) from the most ancient days, God has never changed his tune that men are saved by GRACE, not works. the Mosaic Law was never a ministry of Life, it was a ministry of Death - it *condemned* man, by showing him to be wretched in sin. But Christ's coming didn't change God's rules - Jesus was just making absolutely clear that men could not trust in their works or lineage (the pharisees were notoriously pompous in loudly saying that they had Abraham as their father - as though that made them somehow superior) to justify them before God. the point, naturally, is that it seems odd to need to be constantly aware of what pronounciations are and are not considered current "official doctrine." fortunately, a Christian doesn't have this problem - he can open his Bible, and see for himself what God has to say to him. Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!" [I'm not sure why you find it odd to think of testing a prophet's words. Both the OT and NT refer to the possibility of false prophets, and talk about testing them. See e.g. Deut 8:20ff and I John 4:1ff. --clh]
bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.24.04.15.58.1990.29605@athos.rutgers.edu> frog!jp@bespin.harvard.edu (John Pimentel) writes:
#
#Tim, I can only say this: There are many churches now in the world,
#who claim to be the "True Church", many of which came out of the
#Protestant Reformation (Lutheranism cir. 1517, Radical Sects cir 1520
#[Baptists, in all their varieties, Quakers, Congregationals and Unitarians],
^^^^^^^
Quakers have never claimed to be the "True Church." They believe
that there is that of God in all people, regardless of the religion,
or lack therof, that they may profess.
Bill Jefferys
--
If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your kill file
--Robert Firth
[And the others mentioned, while possibly claiming to be part of the
true Church or a true church, do not claim to be so in any exclusive
sense. It is not uncommon for Christians to set up criteria for being
a church or being Christian, and to believe that certain churches or
individuals do not live up to those criteria. The radical sects cited
are an example. They believed in a "gathered church" as opposed to a
territorial church, i.e. that a church must be made up of those who
have made an individual commitment, rather than of everyone born into
a certain community. Thus they rejected the Lutherans. However there
is a difference between objecting to a particular group because of its
practices and believing that your group is the only one authorized by
God. The latter claim is nearly unheard of among Protestants.
--clh]wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.26.22.31.56.1990.836@athos.rutgers.edu>, timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: > (sorry for the non-attribution. it was lost during the edit session.) >>The Journal of Discourses is not and has not ever been accepted as LDS >>doctrine, further, just because an apostle or prophet says something >>does not make it doctrine, for it up to the membership of the church >>to pray about the "revelation" for the truthfulness of it, before we >>can sustain it as doctrine. Whenever I begin to see non-mormons quote from things like the _Journal of Discourses_, without knowning exactly what the JD was, I want to burst out laughing. So before anyone else starts quoting away with the assumption that anything contained in the JD is authorized, consider the following: The JD was a periodical that ran for some twenty-five years (give or take a few years). It was not started up by the LDS Church, rather it was begun by a few Mormon entrepreneurs (mainly Issac Watts). At the time most Mormons actually resided in England not (gasp!) in the Utah Territory, so these entrepreneurs had the great idea, why not follow the mormon GAs (General Authorities) around, take down their remarks as they spoke to various groups of Mormons in the Utah Territory, and publish their remarks in England in a periodical format, hence the title _Journal of Discourses_. This was possible, for the first time for Mormons, because Issac Watts and a few of his fellow entrepreneurs had been trained in rapido writing, a forerunner to Pitman's shorthand. And so they began to follow GAs around, take down their remarks, and send them to England for publication. Up to this time, when sermons were recorded, they were usually reconstructed from several reporters who took them down in long hand. Hence the number of sermons we have from pre-JD days is rather low. What's so amusing is to see the type of talks they decided to publish. Frankly, you don't sell subscriptions quickly by publishing a series of devotional type sermons, so Watts and his fellow entrepreneurs purposely selected the most speculative remarks of all to reproduce. Just flip open the first volume and you'll see what I mean. The very first talk is by one of the Pratt brothers about what he thinks life in the spirit world (after death, but before the resurrection) is like, and so on, and so forth. Frankly, the first volumes read, sometimes, like one of those LDS priesthood secessions where the lesson breaks down and everyone begins speculating wildly. After about five or six years the project was in the red and there was some internal conflict among the staff of the JD, so the LDS Church took it over and continued the publication, however, they became a little more selective about what was contained. Of course, most anti-mormon writers love to quote the first few volumes, but seem quite unaware of the status of the first volumes among the LDS. >now, you're telling us that (for instance) Apostle Bruce McConkie's >*very* interesting condemnation of the seeking of a personal relation- >ship with Christ, as a *heresy*, might not be necessarily "correct"? Bruce R. McConkie was always such a controversal fellow. Everywhere he went things got HOT. For instance, he wrote an encyclopedia-like work on mormonism called _Mormon Doctrine_, but his first edition was recalled on order of the leading GAs because of certain "inaccuracies." For a while, because the the controversal nature of _Mormon Doctrine_ an official policy limiting publications by GAs was seriously contemplated. For the rest of his life, McConkie was forced to revise and re-edit _Mormon Doctrine_ (each succeeding edition is different) until even he wished that he had never started the project in the first place. While one may criticize his "personal relationship with Christ" talk, which, BTW, upset alot of mormons (including myself), it is a little incomplete to stop with that. McConkie seemingly reversed himself shortly after said "talk" and you will find that for the remainder of his life, he seemed to be involved in a project to rectify the incorrect impressions that his remarks had provoked, ie. his _Mortal Messiah_ series on the life of Christ. -- Willard C. Smith att!iwsgw!wcsa wcsa@iwsgw.att.com "It's life, Captain, but not as we know it."
fuzzy@portia.stanford.edu (Daniel Zappala) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.25.03.11.22.1990.13057@porthos.rutgers.edu> timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: >In article <Aug.20.22.31.58.1990.6607@athos.rutgers.edu> wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: > >>The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only >>a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one >>for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many >>seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only >>one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. > >why would i want to worship a small God? certainly this God-committee that >you describe falls far short of omniscience and omnipotence. this reminds >me of the question James Kirk asked in the somewhat inane movie Star Trek V: >"What would God want with a Starship?" I would reword this as "What use >would God have for a decision-making committee, where He only served as a >sort-of chairman?" if God is who He claims in the Old Testament, there is >only ONE God, and none other like Him. surely if God is omniscient and >omnipotent, then He has no need of advisors??? > The LDS idea of the Godhead as three beings does makes sense to me. You ask what use God would have for "advisors". That to me doesn't capture the sense of the belief as I understand it. God the Father is a loving God, and so he has every reason to want to have a Son who is like him. Jesus is more than an advisor, he is God's Son, and when he was on the earth as a man, he wished to do his father's will. This seems to me to demonstrate why God wanted a Son...surely he could do without him, but can't we see for ourselves how important family relationships are? In addition, the familial relationship within the Godhead provides a wonderful example for us to follow. On the other hand, I don't know why God would "choose" for the Holy Ghost to exist in his function, but I wouldn't put it past him to have a good reason. I think that many people who believe in the trinity are too focused on the "oneness" of God, and forget that the trinity also means there are three separate persons involved, with three separate "functions." So if you want to argue that God doesn't need a group of "advisors", you are in effect arguing against a trinity also...God could surely have conceived a plan of salvation for humanity as a single person too. Daniel Zappala
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.25.03.11.22.1990.13057@porthos.rutgers.edu> vice!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!milton!ogicse!mintaka!snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!christian timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: >In article <Aug.20.22.31.58.1990.6607@athos.rutgers.edu> wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: >>nineth verses state: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed >>that I wuld give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to >>ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in >>your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, ..." >eh? since when has God been in the business of deliberately making it >difficult to come to Him and understanding His Word? What was the >purpose of Christ's parables, except that they were object lessons that >simple folk could understand? To attribute to God that He wants to Try again. See Luke 8:10. Jesus himself said that he used parables so some would not understand. However, even here you miss the mark. The requirement that Joseph Smith do a bit of work while translating was not because God made it difficult (indeed, God removed much of the difficulty) but because the the task was difficult by nature. God simply asked him to to his part to the best of his ability. Divine help was available to overcome the (large) gaps in that ability. Hal Lillywhite "When a man demands proof, you can be sure hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM that proof is the last thing he really wants." Hugh Nibley
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.26.22.31.56.1990.836@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: >now, you're telling us that (for instance) Apostle Bruce McConkie's >*very* interesting condemnation of the seeking of a personal relation- >ship with Christ, as a *heresy*, might not be necessarily "correct"? I suspect you're referring to a talk he gave at BYU, a church sponsored university. You have things a bit out of context. First, McConkie was responding to a specific situation - students (who were of course mostly LDS) forming "Jesus clubs" on campus. Second, if you read the entire talk you will find that what he was opposing was not a personnal relationship with Jesus but a "special relationship" to the exclusion of such a relationship with the Father or the Holy Ghost. In fact he goes on to condemn a relationship with either the Father or the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the others. I think he was emphasizing that we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, not just one of them.